The Perception of Shared Decision-Making in Hematology by Patients and Physicians Seems Satisfactory, but Important Steps are Still Ahead of Us

Communication Strategies of Transplant Hematologists in High-Risk Decision-Making Conversations

PURPOSE

Shared decision making (SDM) is essential to empower patients with blood cancers to make goal-concordant decisions about allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. This study characterizes communication strategies used by hematologists to discuss treatment options and facilitate SDM with patients in this high-risk, high-reward setting.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We recruited US hematologists who routinely perform allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant through email. Participants conducted up to an hour-long video-recorded encounter with an actor portraying a 67-year-old man with recently diagnosed high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. We transcribed and qualitatively analyzed video-recorded data.

RESULTS

The mean age of participants (N = 37) was 44 years, 65% male, and 68% White. Many hematologists included similar key points in this initial consultation, although varied in how much detail they provided. Their discussion of treatment options included transplant and chemotherapy and less commonly supportive care or clinical trials. They often emphasized transplant's potential for cure, discussed transplant chronologically from pretransplant considerations through the post-transplant course, and outlined risks, complications, and major outcomes. Hematologists referred to several elements that formed the basis of treatment decision making. The strength of their treatment recommendations ranged from strong recommendations for transplant or chemotherapy to deferrals pending more information. Hematologists also varied in the extent to which they indicated the decision was physician-driven, patient-led, or shared.

CONCLUSION

The transplant decision-making discussion is complex. Identification of similar content areas used by hematologists can be used as the basis for a communication tool to help hematologists discuss allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant with patients.

Experiences of treatment decision-making among older newly diagnosed adults with acute myeloid leukemia: a qualitative descriptive study

PURPOSE

Treatment decision-making for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is complex and preference-sensitive. We sought to understand the patient experience of treatment decision-making to identify specific challenges in shared decision-making to improve clinical care and to inform the development of directed interventions.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with newly diagnosed older (≥ 60 years) adults with AML and their caregivers following a semi-structured interview guide at a public safety net academic hospital. Interviews were digitally recorded, and qualitative thematic analysis was employed to synthesize findings.

RESULTS

Eighteen in-depth interviews were conducted. Age ranged from 62 to 78 years. Patients received intermediate- (50%) or high-intensity (44%) chemotherapy or best supportive care only (6%). Six themes of patient experiences emerged from the analysis: patients (1) felt overwhelmed and in shock at diagnosis, (2) felt powerless to make decisions, (3) felt rushed and unprepared to make a treatment decision, (4) desired to follow oncologist recommendations for treatment, (5) balanced multiple competing factors during treatment decision-making, and (6) desired for ongoing engagement into their care planning. Patients reported many treatment outcomes that were important in treatment decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Older adults with newly diagnosed AML feel devastated and in shock at their diagnosis which appears to contribute to a feeling of being overwhelmed, unprepared, and rushed into treatment decisions. Because no one factor dominated treatment decision-making for all patients, the use of strategies to elicit individual patient preferences is critical to inform treatment decisions. Interventions are needed to reduce distress and increase a sense of participation in treatment decision-making.

A scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients

OBJECTIVES

In order to improve the degree of shared decision making (SDM) experienced by patients, it is necessary to gain insight into the explanations for the differences in these degrees.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature on the explanations for differences in the degree of SDM experienced by patients was conducted. We assessed 21,329 references. Ultimately, 308 studies were included. The explanations were divided into micro, meso, and macro levels.

RESULTS

The explanations are mainly related to the micro level. They include explanations related to the patient and healthcare professionals, the relationship between the patient and the physician, and the involvement of the patient's relatives. On the macro level, explanations are related to restrictions within the healthcare system such as time constraints, and adequate information about treatment options. On the meso level, explanations are related to the continuity of care and the involvement of other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM is not an isolated process between the physician and patient. Explanations are connected to the macro, meso, and micro levels.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This scoping review suggests that there could be more focus on explanations related to the macro and meso levels, and on how explanations at different levels are interrelated.

Patient-centered communication tool for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia, their caregivers, and oncologists: A single-arm pilot study

BACKGROUND

In a single-arm pilot study, we assessed the feasibility and usefulness of an innovative patient-centered communication tool (UR-GOAL tool) that addresses aging-related vulnerabilities, patient values, and prognostic awareness for use in treatment decision making between older adults with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML), their caregivers, and oncologists.

METHODS

Primary feasibility metric was retention rate; >50% was considered feasible. We collected recruitment rate, usefulness, and outcomes including AML knowledge (range 0-14) and perceived efficacy in communicating with oncologists (range 5-25). Due to the pilot nature and small sample size, hypothesis testing was performed at α = 0.10.

RESULTS

We included 15 patients (mean age 76 years, range 64-88), 12 caregivers, and 5 oncologists; enrollment and retention rates for patients were 84% and 73%, respectively. Patients agreed that the UR-GOAL tool helped them understand their AML diagnosis and treatment options, communicate with their oncologist, and make more informed decisions. From baseline to post-intervention, patients and caregivers scored numerically higher on AML knowledge (patients: +0.6, p = 0.22; caregivers: +1.1, p = 0.05) and perceived greater efficacy in communicating with their oncologists (patients: +1.5, p = 0.22; caregivers: +1.2, p = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that it is feasible to incorporate the UR-GOAL tool into treatment decision making for older patients with AML, their caregivers, and oncologists.

Patient-guided dose reduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in chronic myeloid leukaemia (RODEO study): study protocol for a prospective, multicentre, single-arm trial

BACKGROUND

Dose reduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) in patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) with an optimal response to TKIs may support cost-effective medication use by maintaining therapeutic effectiveness while reducing adverse events and medication costs. As the choice for dose reduction depends on patients' individual needs and preferences, a patient-centred approach is warranted. Therefore, a study to evaluate the effectiveness of patient-guided dose reduction in patients with CML who are in a major or deep molecular response is designed.

METHODS

This study is a prospective, multicentre, single-arm study. 147 patients with CML (aged ≥ 18 years) in chronic phase, who are treated with imatinib, bosutinib, dasatinib, nilotinib or ponatinib, and have reached at least major molecular response (defined as having BCR-ABL levels < 0.1% for an uninterrupted period of 6 months) are eligible. Patients will use an online patient decision aid and a shared decision making consultation will be held, after which patients who choose to will receive a personalised, lower TKI dose. Primary outcome is the proportion of patients with intervention failure at 12 months after dose reduction, defined as patients who have restarted their initial dose due to (expected) loss of major molecular response. For this, BCR-ABL1 levels will be analysed from blood samples drawn at baseline, 6 weeks after dose reduction and 3-monthly thereafter. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of patients with intervention failure at 6 and 18 months after dose reduction. Other outcomes include differences before and after dose reduction regarding the number and severity of patient-reported side effects; quality of life; beliefs about medicines; and medication adherence. Patients' level of decisional conflict and regret after choosing dose reduction will be assessed, as will the decisional process experienced by patients and healthcare providers.

DISCUSSION

Outcomes of this trial using a personalised approach will provide clinical and patient-reported data to guide future dose reduction of TKIs in CML. If the strategy appears to be effective, it may be implemented as another valid option to offer next to standard of care to prevent potential unnecessary exposure to higher TKI doses in this selected group of patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT number 2021-006581-20.

Why real world outcome information is indispensable in making treatment decisions for multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVE

A next step in value-based healthcare (VBHC) is to use outcome information (OI) to inform patients about (personalized) outcomes of care in order to support decision-making processes. We aimed to explore multiple myeloma (MM) patients' and caregivers' views on communication of OI and (shared) decision-making (SDM).

METHODS

Focus groups with MM patients and caregivers. Main topics were experiences and needs with information provision, communication, decision-making, and use of OI. Focus groups were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analyzed in an iterative process by two researchers using open coding. Member checks were performed.

RESULTS

Two focus groups were held with 11 patients (91% male, M=71 years old) and 10 caregivers (89% partners). Information needs were different per moment in the disease trajectory and purpose. Patients were implicitly involved in decisions, but they were not always aware of options and no active weighing of values took place. Outcome information was mostly provided on an individual level, to monitor disease progression and initiate decisions about the need for changes in ongoing treatment regimens (follow-up treatment lines). Patients appreciated the current process of information provision and decision-making, but prefer more option awareness, a bigger role in decision-making and more OI to 1) weigh outcomes for decision-making; 2) get insight in their care trajectory; and 3) compare with other patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants were satisfied with information provision and decision-making, but they were only implicitly involved in decisions. Real world OI derived from VBHC improvement cycles for MM may fulfil MM patients' and caregivers' information needs and support treatment decision-making.

Comparison of the CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires to appreciate the patient-reported level of shared decision-making

OBJECTIVE

To compare CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires when appreciating patient-perceived level of shared decision-making (SDM) in doctor-patient consultations.

METHODS

Data were harvested from five separate studies on SDM, conducted in three university and one large community hospital in the Netherlands, using Dutch versions of both questionnaires. CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 scores were expressed as percentages. Correlation was assessed using Spearman's Rho coefficient. Bland&Altman analysis was used to assess the degree of agreement. Top scores were calculated to assess possible ceiling effects.

RESULTS

The five studies included 442 patients. Median CollaboRATE scores (88.9%, IQR 81.5-100%) were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than SDM-Q-9 scores (80.0%, IQR 64.4-100%). Correlation was moderate (Rho=0.53, p < 0.001). A systematic, 12.5-point higher score was found across the range of scores when using CollaboRATE. Top scores for CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 were present in 37.5% and 17% of questionnaires, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires showed a high level of patient-perceived SDM. However, CollaboRATE only moderately correlated with SDM-Q-9 and had a stronger ceiling effect.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

When choosing a SDM-measurement tool, its benefits and limitations should be weighed. These metrics should be combined with objective scores of SDM, as these may differ from the patients' subjective interpretation.

Shared decision-making in the Netherlands: Progress is made, but not for all. Time to become inclusive to patients

Dutch initiatives targeting shared decision-making (SDM) are still growing, supported by the government, the Federation of Patients' Organisations, professional bodies and healthcare insurers. The large majority of patients prefers the SDM model. The Dutch are working hard to realise improvement in the application of SDM in daily clinical practice, resulting in glimpses of success with objectified improvement on observed behavior. Nevertheless, the culture shift is still ongoing. Large-scale uptake of SDM behavior is still a challenge. We haven't yet fully reached the patients' needs, given disappointing research data on patients' experiences and professional behavior. In all Dutch implementation projects, early adopters, believers or higher-educated persons have been overrepresented, while patients with limited health literacy have been underrepresented. This is a huge problem as 25% of the Dutch adult population have limited health literacy. To further enhance SDM there are issues to be addressed: We need to make physicians conscious about their limited application of SDM in daily practice, especially regarding preference and decision talk. We need to reward clinicians for the extra work that comes with SDM. We need to be inclusive to patients with limited health literacy, who are less often actually involved in decision-making and at the same time more likely to regret their chosen treatment compared to patients with higher health literacy.